The Michigan Attorney Discipline Board has concluded that a petitioner had failed to establish his current fitness for reinstatement to practice. The board disagreed with a 2-1 panel decision that had ordered the attorney's return to practice.

The board found that the petitioner (who had been disciplined on a number of occasions without a fitness requirement) "had been given more than his fair share of chances to show that his misconduct was an aberration..." and was less than impressed with his present attitude:

The Administrator quotes various portions of petitioner's testimony in the reinstatement hearing which shows him to be flippant, cagey and cavalier with respect to his handling of his trust accounts in general (his wife maintains them and he never bothers to check that they are maintained appropriately), and with respect to accounts of his legal and real estate firms used to collect funds he manages for his father as attorney-in-fact.

The board noted that the burden is on the petitioner to establish present fitness. "[H]e must do more than simply state that he has learned his lesson and is ready to return to practice." (Mike Frisch)